Is there a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

If so, what is it?

[CottonBear]

1. The names. That's all. n/t

[MnFats]

incredibly, 'intelligent design' is LESS Specific than ...

...creation.

As in, "OH, it's complicated, too complicated for our imperfect minds to comprehend; therefore a divine being did it.
"An eye? Could evolution have created something so complex as the human eye? I rest my case. Now shut up, you godless commie evolutionists and get out of the way of God's People.

[Walt Starr]

2. Yes, the spelling of the names and nothing else. n/t

[leeroysphitz]

3. A rose by a different name is all... n/t

[porphyrian]

4. Yes, "Intelligent Design" is deceptively named.

Creationism is more direct.

[bowens43]

5. No.

You can put lipstck on a pig but it's still a pig.

[Justitia]

10. LOL - great minds and all (re: my post below)! -eom

[sharp_stick]

6. Sure

Creationism doesn't try to cover it's bullshit in scientific sounding language. That's about all I can see.

[wryter2000]

30. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Loonman]

Somewhat

Creationism doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is. ID tries to dishonestly sidestep that by not allowing discussion about the "designer".

[KittyWampus]

13. ??? Intelligent Design Does NOT Necessarily Require Discussion Of Designer

SOME ID theorists go too far and make that leap. And they are the ones that Fundies on both sides (Religious and Science) point to.

[Loonman]

24. Nope

Keep asking about who then designer is next time someone lays this crap on you.

[KittyWampus]

34. There need not be a "Designer". Any more than Natural Selection Requires

a "Selector".

Nature is perfectly capable of having a capacity for Design.

It seems many people have a difficult time getting past the projection of their own personhood onto Nature and Universe.

[Loonman]

45. It's claptrap

I only discuss ID in a manner that ridicules it.

[rman]

53. That implies the design is not the result of a conscious effort;

which implies that no consciousness is involved.

Which explains even less then when a consciousness would have been involved.

And they write books about this?

[Zhade]

66. I've never heard of "random design".

Doesn't the very idea of "design" require intelligence?

[rman]

84. i'd think that intelligent design requires intelligence.

but apparently according to ID-ers it doesn't.

[Zhade]

85. Then they might as well call it Dumbass Fairy Godfather Design.

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

62. "Nature is perfectly capable of having a capacity for Design."

Prove it (for once).

[jonnyblitz]

26. what is a scientific fundamentalist again?

that phrase COMPLETELY baffles me. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

31. She never answered us the last time we asked.

:evilgrin:

[KittyWampus]

43. I Don't Usually Post More Than Once Or Twice In These Circlejerks

[beam me up scottie]

46. I can see why.

:freak:

[Zhade]

71. Not having anything to back up unproven assertions usually does that.

Hiya, BMUS!

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

72. Hi Zhade!

I see you're cleaning up after me and the rest of the sloppy day crew again!
It's always great to backtrack and read your posts.
Your logic trumps emotion every time.

:hi:

[Zhade]

73. You're too kind.

Seriously. Stop it.

:P

But for real, I think I let my emotion get the best of me at times. I just can't stand people making claims they can't back up, and THEN insulting people for "not getting it".

At that point, all bets are off. You can believe what you want, but to insult others for not believing it crosses the line. Then I get mad!

[beam me up scottie]

74. Yeah, we're just evil science-worshipers, what do we know?

Everybody knows Spock is God.

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

76. That would be awesome!

Unless he had a beard...

[beam me up scottie]

78. *snort!

What does god need with a spaceship?

[Zhade]

79. Worst. Star Trek Movie. EVER.

GAH! MY EYES!

[beam me up scottie]

80. Yeah, but

that's still one of the best lines ever.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Wow, you really nailed the damn Science Fundamentalists w/that one!

Circlejerks. Yea, verily, in addition to blaspheming against THE LORD, they commiteth the sin of Onan in spherical array.

Hey, if you're not too busy, maybe you can tell us how many folks at the "Discovery Institute" are Buddhists, UFO Cultists, Solipsists, Quantum Physicists or Nature Worshippers?

(In other words: How many of them aren't playing 'scientist' while moonlighting from their positions as religious right axe-grinders for the Catholic Church or other Christian Denominations?)

[KittyWampus]

42. someone who blindly adhers to Materialism despite any evidence that

Physical Matter is not all there is.

[porphyrian]

44. What is the evidence that Physical Matter is not all there is?

Can you support that claim?

[Zhade]

61. Of course not. Cryingshame NEVER supports that argument.

Ever. No links, nothing except "it is too!" assertions worth less than the electrons expended to push the laughable bullshit in the first place.

Seriously, I've asked several times for evidence, and NEVER get any.

[jonnyblitz]

49. doesn't this go back to the debate about whether conciousness

is something separate from physical matter as opposed to part of it?I assumed conciousness happened in the brain (which is physical) and, without the brain, conciousness wouldn't happen therefore it is considered part of physical matter. I admit I am not versed on this topic to articulate it to any degree.

[Zhade]

65. A distraction from the fact that CS has no evidence to offer.

NT!

[Zenlitened]

55. Well, they've got a serious branding problem them.

Why call it "intelligent design" if there's no designer? :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

7. Yes, Intelligent Design Simply Posits Nature Having An Inherent Capacity

of manifesting Intelligence.

No mentino of Creator or God necessary.

[beam me up scottie]

11. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

17. Excuse? Then Please Explain How Consciousness Can Evolve From Physical

matter?

It's certainly sensible and possible that Consciousness exists within Nature from the very start and becomes ever more apparent as Nature evolves.

[trotsky]

33. Do you have an example of a consciousness

that exists separately from physical matter?

[KittyWampus]

41. Information exists independently from Matter.

And Information shows Nature has the capacity to communicate, respond, coordinate and occasionally generate completely new information.

Consciousness is the capacity for Knowing. The generation, storing and sharing and response to Information exhibited by Nature shows a certain very basic and intrinsic level of Consciousness.

Conversely, can you prove that Physical Matter exists without some form of In-form-ation?

[porphyrian]

47. What evidence is there that information exists independently...

...from matter? Do you mean when its carried in the form of energy, which is the other component of the physical universe?

[beam me up scottie]

50. You do realize that "Nature" is not sentient, don't you?

I think you're the one who has a "difficult time getting past the projection of their own personhood onto Nature and Universe."

[trotsky]

52. Information is not consciousness.

And "knowing" is not the same as information storage. I can store data on a diskette, but does the diskette "know" what I have stored on it?

Sorry, your definitions don't make any sense.

[Zhade]

67. Again, prove it. If you can.

But you won't, because you HAVE no evidence backing up your claims.

"Conversely, can you prove that Physical Matter exists without some form of In-form-ation?"

Sorry, as has been explained to you more than once, the burden of proof is on YOU to support your positive claims, not others to disprove them or prove the opposite.

You made the claim. Back it up. Oh, but wait - you can't, because you have no evidence.

[Ladyhawk]

75. Have fun, Zhade. Ladyhawk is sitting this one out!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Zhade]

77. Smart move!

If you held your breath waiting for evidence, you'd pass out.

LOVE the sig, btw!

[Ladyhawk]

87. I asked for evidence once and never came back because I know

there isn't any. :shrug:

That's why it's called "faith." We don't speak of faith when it concerns the material world. As Bertrand Russell put it: "We may define 'faith' as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions."

People say, "I believe in God" or "I believe in bigfoot." Have you ever heard someone say, "I believe in lupines" or "I believe in live oak trees" or "I believe in sidewalks"? There's no reason to say such things because the "proof" is right before our eyes. I prefer to stay a member of the reality-based community.

Here are some more famous quotes about faith:

"Faith is believing in what you know ain't true." --Mark Twain

"Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no belief that cannot be justified." -- Rev. Donald Morgan (b. 1933), Atheist theologian

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

"In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be 'saved' from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.” -- George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

"As soon as one's convictions become unshakeable, evidence ceases to be relevant - except as a means to convert the unbelievers. Factual inaccuracies... are excusable in the light of the Higher Truth." --P.H. Hoebens

[Zhade]

64. Possible, eh? Finally moving the goalposts, then?

You've continuously insisted that it DOES, now you're saying it's POSSIBLE.

Good. It's getting through to you that you have no evidence for your claims. FINALLY.

[trotsky]

14. Is there an ID group that's pushing that spin on the theory?

Virtually all I have heard of are Christian fundamentalist groups arguing nothing about "nature having an inherent capacity of manifesting intelligence."

[KittyWampus]

21. Actually, there's a website where theorists post their papers for peer

review and where they post their rebutals to critics.

Below is the link to said site of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.

I've posted it numerous times inviting DU'ers to go over there and start "kicking butt" and refuting the ID theorists .. but so far no one has bothered. It's the section called Brainstorms and AFAIK, you don't have to donate or pay to post there. But I might be wrong.

Edit:

here is the link to the site (International Society for Complexity, Information and Design) where ID theorists post their papers if anyone wants to really sink their teeth into this

http://www.iscid.org

[Bridget Burke]

39. What does "Scientific Fundamentalist" mean?

Please explain.

[porphyrian]

56. I like their new rule...

"Topic: New Posting Policy
Moderator
Administrator
posted 18. July 2005 21:33

Primary Rule:
Post substantial content or else your post may be deleted.

We reserve the right to delete any post that we feel does not meet a civil level of discourse. The overall aim of any discussion at Brainstorms should be to move the discussion forward. Bombastic posturing and all forms of triumphalism are frowned upon."

So we have to suck up to the people making unsupported and unsupportable claims in order to post.

[porphyrian]

58. Oh, this one's even better...

"On Criticism - Four General Types

This post is intended to give the new user a general sense of what the moderators are looking out for. What we intend by this post is to merely identify certain patterns of behavior, which are not welcome at Brainstorms. By identifying behavior patterns, both participants and moderators will have a better sense of what we expect out of Brainstorms conversations. These are some categories of criticism that are often reflected in the posts at Brainstorms:

1. Open-minded skepticism: I'm interested, even interested in helping develop the idea, but certainly not convinced.
2. Closed-minded skepticism: Not convinced and no longer interested in being convinced. Call me only if something new develops somewhere to cause quite a commotion.
3. Debunker: Not convinced; no longer interested in being convinced; interested only in convincing others they are wrong.
4. Debunking Crusader: Debunking to save humanity.

At Brainstorms, the only type of criticisms that is allowed is #1."

Yeah, I'm going to spend a lot of time there...
:eyes:

[trotsky]

60. You're kidding me!

They've made "debunker" a bad word much like the Repukes have done to "liberal."

Oh, we're welcome to post and criticize, so long as it's still possible that we might end up agreeing with what we criticize.

Yeah, that sounds really open to discussion.

[porphyrian]

69. Sadly, I'm not.

Yeah, they're "open," to converts and sycophants anyway. It seems this "discussion" is designed to debunk contrary viewpoints rather than actually debate the issue. The cost of admission seems to be either agreeing with them or simply not disagreeing, all in a gentle and non-offensive tone.

[Zhade]

68. That's hardly unbiased evidence.

Try again - this time using REAL science, you know, the kind used by actual scientists who know what they're talking about.

And again, it's not up to the skeptics to refute the IDiots who believe that tripe - it's up to the believers to prove their claims.

So far, no dice.

[Loonman]

51. Another feint

The "nature having an inherent capacity of manifesting intelligence" is a small part of some new circular reasong regarding ID. News to me as well. Still sounds like a bunch of hooey.

[Zenlitened]

57. That's true. Nature does indeed manifest intelligence.

It's us. Human beings. And the other beings that inhabit our planet, that have varying degrees of intelligence.

As for the "Intelligent Design does not require a designer"... that statement makes no sense. :shrug:

[Greyhound]

59. What a load! And you would force this opinion on kids that are already

struggling to get even a minimal education. Holding this claptrap up as equivalent to science is just another reason we are the laughing stock of the world.

[Zhade]

63. Your divergent personal definition posits that, yes.

But mainstream ID (as pushed on schools) does not, although it's equally as full of bullshit as your unproven assertions.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Oh, baloney.

It clearly argues that life as we know it is too "irreducibly complex" to have arisen through natural means.. but to get around certain aspects of the US Constitution they leave out just what or WHO (hint: white beard, flowing robes, stern expression, obsession with people's sex lives) could have produced, for example, the inexplicably irreducibly complex male nipple.

[Justitia]

8. Only one pig has lipstick. -eom

[trotsky]

9. Sort of.

"Intelligent Design" is creationism, except that ID proponents are very careful, in public at least, to attach any particular deity to the role of intelligent designer. They learned their lessons from court decisions disallowing creationism on the basis of it being religion, so they think that by not mentioning WHO the designer is, it can slip under the radar.

[Hobarticus]

12. Putting 'intelligent' in a name makes you smarter if you believe, y'see

It's just branding and marketing.

[Loonman]

15. I used the "Billy Madison" line while deriding an ID'er, once

"thank you, we are now all dumber after having heard about Intelligent Design and discussing it"

[BOSSHOG]

16. Its a Trojan Horse

which zealots want to use to slip their religious beliefs into public schools. So-called christians spend millions to come up with catchy names and phrases to make them seem harmless. I have two solutions to offer:

- Evolution should be taught side by side with Creationism in Sunday Schools, or

- churches lose their tax exempt status, preferably retroactive to at least 1980. They wanna play, the should pay. Then we'd really get a good national chit chat about the separation of church and state.

[rman]

54. very poorly disguised,

if i may say so.

[stopbush]

18. Is there a difference between ID and willful stupidity?

[beam me up scottie]

29. "Willful stupidity" !

:spray:
:rofl:

[Lasher]

19. Same thing

AKA 'faith based', AKA 'religious'

[FreedomAngel82]

20. From my understanding

ID is the belief that someone made everything. With Creationsim it's a Christian story about how everything was created. God said this and than it happened etc. The "religious right" may be stating that ID is not religious but it certainly is. It's a belief system.

[maine_raptor]

22. One very simple difference

"An Ape never gave a dime to Jim and Tammy Bakker."

End of Story, Game Set, Point, Match, Argument Over.

:beer:

[A Simple Game]

36. That got a great big smile out of me. Thanks. n/t

[Demit]

23. "Creationism" polled badly. But I don't think Intelligent Design is any

better, really. I remember reading discussion threads some months ago (forget where) on exactly why some physical features of the human body are NOT very intelligently designed. And speaking for myself, as a graphic designer, I have to say that good design--truly elegant design--is considered to be that which accomplishes a function in the simplest, most straightforward, way. (Which is what those threads covered in terrific scientific detail).

[TheFarseer]

25. yes, there is a big difference

ID is slightly less stupid and doesn't completely discount undeniable proof of a planet that is billions of years old. Intelligent design sounds closer to evolution than creationism. My understanding is that it basically parallels evolution except it claims that God set the world in motion AND God is responsible for the mutations of species rather than natural selection. Of course they have mountains of evidence to prove this :eyes: Or no evidence what-so-ever, I can never remember which :) Please, if I am wrong, someone correct me.

[maine_raptor]

32. You are basically right

Except NEITHER has any TEST-ABLE "proof". Prove to me with verifiable, repeatable test, and I;ll believe ya, till then, it's a MYTH.

[papau]

35. I think you nailed it - Is Nature herself intelligent- whatever that means

and however that happened. I can sorta see an Eastern religion sort of "oneness" .... :-) Then again intelligent Ghia (another name for Mother Earth) had a burst of popularity a while back.


Non-Darwin evolution needs some explaining - but I do not see Intelligent design as a theory that passes scientific rules for being called science.

[wryter2000]

27. It's a bit more subtle

Or, you could say, honest. :evilgrin:

[mmonk]

28. Same people in new clothes

[nookiemonster]

37. No. Simple semantics.

eom

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. Answering your question seriously

I understand it to be Adam and Eve is creationism and Intelligent Design is we have no idea but God musta done it.

[beam me up scottie]

40. "Intelligent" design:

[RedstDem]

48. God Created The Conditions For Intelligent Design To Evolve

I Think

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. About the same as the difference between a lie and an untruth.

Or, in the vulgate, bullshit and bullcrap.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. a bubblin' crock of poo, and a bubblin' crock of poo carefully disguised

as a cheap end run around the Establishment Clause.

[PowerToThePeople]

86. They are both cow dung. n/t